So very wrong

September 7th, 2013 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Phil Kitchin at Stuff writes:

Two victims of a serial paedophile fighting to keep his name secret will ask a judge to lift suppression of their names, as they join a legal battle to prevent the man getting compensation for an alleged privacy breach.

The women are furious that taxpayers will fund the Office of Human Rights Proceedings’ prosecution of the for revealing the predator’s name – but it won’t fund a lawyer to represent them.

One victim said she and fellow taxpayers were paying for a paedophile to continue “the abuse”, because he still denied his guilt, despite his multiple sex convictions.

It beggared belief that an independent office from within the Human Rights Commission was fighting to protect his privacy – and wanted him compensated – when no court record existed of him having final name suppression, the women said.

“He robbed me of my childhood and murdered my innocence,” one of them told The Dominion Post.

They believed the man was “cowardly” for trying to keep his name secret, saying who did not admit their crimes usually reoffended, and there could be other victims who had not spoken to police.

“Robbers and murderers don’t get name suppression, so it’s just as important that these people are stopped,” one victim said. “He has no privacy – he gave up his right to privacy when he abused innocent young girls and was convicted in a court of law.”

The paedophile – who was earning about $150,000 a year in a chief executive role until he was outed – said in a sworn statement that he did not commit the crimes for which he was convicted in the mid-1990s and sentenced to a year’s jail.

If there is no court record of name suppression, I do not see how one can just assume the man had name suppression, and hence assume that the sensible Sentencing Trust have breached his privacy.

Tags: , ,

22 Responses to “So very wrong”

  1. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    What warped perverse values the state upholds.Actively protecting criminals “rights”at our expense. No common sense.We’re going the way of Blair’s Broken Britain.

    These HR organisations are a dreadful waste of taxpayers money and should all be scraped.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    The article states that the Sensible Sentencing Trust is being “prosecuted”. Every(?) other article that Phil Kitchin has written about this has similarly referred to the Sensible Sentencing Trust being “prosecuted”.

    The Sensible Sentencing Trust is not being prosecuted. This has been pointed out *repeatedly*.

    I am not sure, therefore, how we can be confident of any of the claims in this article.

    I do not see how one can just assume the man had name suppression, and hence assume that the sensible Sentencing Trust have breached his privacy.

    Who is assuming this? It will need to be proved.

    [DPF: The Office that brought the proceedings is obviously assuming this]

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    The Office of Human Rights seems to carry a lot of high-minded assumptions about humanity and humanities rights, not humanities place in a wider ecological- biological framework.
    Note the way they pounce on issues as when Dr Greg Clydesdale dared to question the value of Pacific Island immigration… right or wrong there was only one allowable answer.
    Imagine if eating was making us fat but you weren’t allowed to see it that way…humanity has no faults?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. gravedodger (1,566 comments) says:

    @ kowtow, they probably should be scrapped also, but your suggestion has merit as a first stage.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    gravedodger

    Tad pedantic?

    Im not great with apostrophies either.Feel free to demonstrate your superiority there too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. cha (4,026 comments) says:

    cough

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. peterwn (3,273 comments) says:

    Seems the issue is the source of the information, rather than the content.

    I also have a serious concern about the various ‘Kangaroo Courts’ various governments have set up who can ‘convict’ on the balance of probabilities, and impose massive fines – far more than a judge would impose for a similar criminal matter. I would go along with tribunals dealing with various classes of people under their ambit (usually occupational), but not ones that can affect the general public.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Longknives (4,753 comments) says:

    I’d like to hear from Judith- ‘The Criminal’s friend’.. on this matter

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. flipper (4,068 comments) says:

    Graeme E @ 11.07 is absolutely correct.

    Suppression order? If found to be true, publish at your peril.
    No suppression order? Lump it. Public exposure is part of part of the sentence.

    Regurgitating matters long (20 years) after the event for no obvious benefit, apart from the extension of a Court imposed sentence? Moot – Unless “it” is directed at you “pocket knives”, at which time you will change your pre-cast views on such matters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Longknives (4,753 comments) says:

    Morning Judith!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. OneTrack (3,109 comments) says:

    So progressive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    cheers Cha

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    If its supressed its the worst supression ever, he’s all over the net

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. flipper (4,068 comments) says:

    So pocketknives…..

    Am I Judith?
    How to do you know that I am not also Rowan, or Nostalgia-NZ, or Kanz or FES, or, by adopting another persona, Ian Binnie (using an anonymous sobriquet), or Crown Law defenders like Nookin, and Peterwn, or even CS/JFRB/KP, nutter advocates like muggins and the mad tooth puller?

    Wrong, and quite pathetic, you dipshit.

    And BTW, apologies to Rowan, Nos-NZ, JUDITH, Kanz, FES, Nookin, Peterwn, and Ian Binnie.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    [DPF: The Office that brought the proceedings is obviously assuming this]

    Assuming it, or confident they can prove it?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Longknives

    1. I am not flipper and nor is flipper me. That two people can agree of something but yet have differences on other topics seems to be something you are unfamiliar with.

    2. Justice appears to be a concept you have difficulty with too. That is what I believe in. I believe that people who commit crimes should received justice, and those that don’t should also receive justice.

    3. I was bought up and trained in a profession to have a healthy respect for the law, and the Courts. I do not always agree with them, but the rulings are there for a purpose. Whatever reason the courts decided to give this offender name suppression would not have been to protect him, there would have been other reasons.

    Those reasons are usually to protect some innocent person who will be harmed if the information is released. I have seen very few examples of where the SST has worried in the slightest about those innocent people, and preferred to act on the opinions on just one or two of the victims. Unless ALL victims (and that includes those non-direct victims) agree that lifting the suppression is okay, then the order needs to stay in place, not to protect the offender, but to protect others.

    4. I object to your continued wanking. You know sweet F all about who or what I support. If you want to know something, ask, and stop being a f-wit by presuming you know it all – you don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Honeybadger (212 comments) says:

    I applaud the women for following their beliefs in this, the man is a menace to children, until he stops denying his guilt, he will continue to be so. And why wont the Human rights commission fund legal aid for the women? Wrong wrong wrong….

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    Human rights ,but whose?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10291983/Criminal-who-burned-womans-face-can-stay-in-Britain-because-of-his-human-rights.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Nikki Pender (18 comments) says:

    I’m advising these two women, so can’t comment too much on this post. However, just to clarify the background as there seems to be some uncertainty from the comments above.

    The Director of Human Rights Proceedings is bringing an action before the Human Rights Review Tribunal (HRRT) against the SST for breach of the offender’s privacy. The man could have brought the same action himself, but would have had to fund his own costs and been liable for the SST’s costs if unsuccessful. The Director has decided to assume those costs and risks on his behalf. My clients applied to be joined to this proceeding and have their own costs paid for out of public funds. They have been joined but have not been granted any public funding. The man and his current partner have interim name suppression pending the outcome of the HRRT proceeding.

    The two complainants automatically received name suppression due to the sexual nature of the offences. The SST published the offender’s name and details of his convictions on its offender database. It did not disclose the offender’s relationship to his victims or publish any details that could identify them. However, the Director’s case is that because of the women’s suppression and his relationship to them, the offender himself has a derivative “right” to name suppression which the SST did not take sufficient care to protect. Hence the action and a claim for a significant amount of damage due to losses apparently suffered by him.

    My clients have applied to the District Court to have suppression of their identities lifted. What effect this has on the “derivative right” argument will be determined by the HRRT.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. civil serpent (23 comments) says:

    Nikki Pender – a couple of points:

    1 The DHRP is bringing proceedings following a referral from the Privacy Commissioner. The Privacy Act provides that if the DHRP brings proceedings in a case that has been referred to him, and loses, then the Privacy Commissioner pays those costs.
    2 You say that your clients “have not been granted any public funding”. Presumably you mean funding from any of the Privacy Commission, the Human Rights Commission or the Office of Human Rights Proceedings. However as I read those Acts, which I’ve just done, there is no mechanism under any of the legislation setting the agencies up, for funding your clients – even if any of those agencies wanted to provide “funding”. The DHRP in a case such as this is a quasi-prosecutor in the sense that the proceedings are brought in his name, but the outcome is not a punitive one. Anyway, your clients may or may not be eligible for legal aid?
    3 As I have read the various decisions about this case thus far (via NZLII) the case is not just about the so-called “derivative right” that existed under s140 CJA; the offender also had interim suppression in his own right under s139 CJA and the “black hole” is whether that interim order was ever made final. My sense of the judgments is that this is what the case before the HRRT may focus on. From reading the HRRT decision earlier this year, it would have been easy for SST to have discovered that he had interim suppression.
    4 Good luck with the application to the DC. It has all the hallmarks of a collateral attack on the HRRT though.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. itstricky (1,836 comments) says:

    Whatever reason the courts decided to give this offender name suppression would not have been to protect him, there would have been other reasons.

    Agree. Something that the puppet commentators and DPF (for some reason, I can only guess because it’s good business to stir) can’t seem to grasp.

    Nothing is *ever* as simple as it seems (see the two comments above for a good confirmation of that). This is why the SST is often on the wrong side of justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. gravedodger (1,566 comments) says:

    @ kow tow, apologies, I accept it was potentially pedantic, but it really was just an attempt at humour on a typo.
    I am the last one to attempt to correct grammar, expression or messaging so could you just accept my apologies.

    Btw scraping sounded a good prep before roasting then abolition.
    Cheers
    M.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote